Comparison of Triage Strategies for HPV-Positive Women: Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: High-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) testing has become a preferred cervical cancer screening strategy in some countries due to its superior sensitivity over cytology-based methods for identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). Improved sensitivity has been accompanied by reductions in specificity and concerns regarding overscreening and overtreatment of women with transient or nonprogressing HR-HPV infections. Triage of HR-HPV+ women to colposcopy is, thus, warranted for appropriate management and treatment. Methods: Using data from the Canadian Cervical Cancer Screening Trial (CCCaST), we compared the performance of cytology and HR-HPV strategies to detect CIN2+ among HR-HPV+ women (age, 30–69 years). Colposcopy referral rates and performance gains from adding other HR-HPV genotypes to HPV16/18+ triage were also evaluated. Results: A strategy referring all women HPV16/18+ and HPV16/18−, but with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse cytology (ASC-US+) had the highest sensitivity [82.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 70.9%–91.0%] but yielded the highest colposcopy referral rate. HPV16/18+ triage was the next most sensitive strategy (64.1%; 95% CI, 51.1%–75.7%). Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse cytology (LSIL+) triage yielded a low sensitivity (32.8%; 95% CI, 21.9%–45.4%) but had the most favorable specificity (93.6%; 95% CI, 91.0%–95.6%), positive predictive value (41.5%; 95% CI, 28.1%–55.9%), and colposcopy referral rate of strategies examined. HPV viral load triage strategies did not perform optimally overall. Inclusion of HR-HPV genotypes 31 and 52 to HPV16/18+ triage provided the highest sensitivities. Conclusion: Concerns surrounding HPV-based screening can be effectively mitigated via triage. Impact: Balancing the benefits of HPV-based primary cervical screening with informed management recommendations for HR-HPV+ women may decide the success of its widening utilization. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(6); 923–9. ©2017 AACR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".